They just don't believe that any effort has to include gun bans. (Yes, I know that only some gun bans are being considered and not every single type/model of firearm.)

Here is a novel idea. Why don't we look at measures we can find consensus on first, rather than being determined to defeat the other side.

March 20th, 2013

hossenpepper

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimson

Why don't we look at measures we can find consensus on first, rather than being determined to defeat the other side.

Interesting.

Seems to me that the "liberal" side came out and said "We have to do something about this. What will work? Ban this? Limit that? Make this law here?"

The conservative side came out and immediately said "They aren't taking my guns away. This is another Obama conspiracy. The 2nd amendment is ordained by God!! No to all liberal ideas."

In the absence of any actual ideas from the right (except say "no"), the liberal side came up with this and that. All of which has been rejected by the right.

I am not debating the validity of the ideas presented by the left. I get politics. But, if you offer no ideas, rather spending the time making it clear how important you think your specific ideological view is and that it transcends opinion and therefore is the only logic, and only poopoo every word from the "enemy camp", well.... maybe your views aren't going to be seen as an attempt at compromise. Perhaps that will be seen for what it is; just an attempt to defeat the other side in a preemptive strike.

March 20th, 2013

jimson

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

Quote:

Originally Posted by hossenpepper

Interesting.

Seems to me that the "liberal" side came out and said "We have to do something about this. What will work? Ban this? Limit that? Make this law here?"

The conservative side came out and immediately said "They aren't taking my guns away. This is another Obama conspiracy. The 2nd amendment is ordained by God!! No to all liberal ideas."

In the absence of any actual ideas from the right (except say "no"), the liberal side came up with this and that. All of which has been rejected by the right.

I am not debating the validity of the ideas presented by the left. I get politics. But, if you offer no ideas, rather spending the time making it clear how important you think your specific ideological view is and that it transcends opinion and therefore is the only logic, and only poopoo every word from the "enemy camp", well.... maybe your views aren't going to be seen as an attempt at compromise. Perhaps that will be seen for what it is; just an attempt to defeat the other side in a preemptive strike.

People always say that about the other side. Remember when Obama said Republicans aren't coming out with any alternatives on the Health Care issue?

He didn't mention that they were virtually shut out of the discussions from the get go.

This was in the post you responded to, did you completely miss it?Senators introduce legislation to block mentally ill from buying firearms.

oh, bulldogs, jimson...if we try to do one thing around here it should at least be more uprfront and honest than your average pol:

the d's held open hearings for a very long time...the 'closed' meetings had r members who were there to work, not stop the flow of progress

there was no point where r's could not be involved other than when they wished to control the agenda

i am an r and have been all my life...this line of pure BS has got to stop...we did all that to ourselves because qwe thought if we lied loud enough, the people might buy it ...again...

they didn't...

congress actually acted...and in a manner which took far more consideration of r ideas than if your illusive boogeymen for the far left had had the total control you seem to wish to bestow upon them

the bill passed was/is an r bill...with r ideas: get over it

the r's have, on the gun issue, been near silent and have done nothing other than what their NRA handlers will allow them to do...there's no originality...no thought-provoking ideas...no game changers...

we, the r's, are once again totally failing to lead or act in a manner that is intelligable or reasonable..and blaming the other guy is the sort of low level muckraking i expect from a career pol...not an intelligent american

March 20th, 2013

jimson

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

I don't believe it Guido, there were many Republican ideas that never saw the light of day. Tort reform. competition across state lines, etc. I can only tell you what I heard concerning an exchange between Senator John Kyl and the President when Kyl expressed concern that Republicans weren't being given adequate voice. Obama's response: "I have news for you, there was an election and we won."

I can't find any confirmation about that incident, but I clearly remember hearing about it, and given his later remarks about Republicans having to "ride in the back of the bus" it sounds plausible to me.

Regarding the gun issue, there are Republican ideas like the aforementioned senate proposal, stronger school security etc, but hey I guess it just doesn't count unless it prevents law abiding citizens from owning certain weapons.

Even if what you say is true, I am not going to support bad legislation just because it is the only legislation being offered.

We can agree to disagree.

You might want to consider switching parties though, there is no need to remain an "R", simply because you always have been, if you have that kind contempt for them. No party can match everything you believe, I am fairly neutral on abortion and I have no issue with the legalization of marijuana but on balance, I still align with them more than I do Democrats

March 20th, 2013

Sepia and Dust

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimson

I can't find any confirmation about that incident, but I clearly remember hearing about it, and given his later remarks about Republicans having to "ride in the back of the bus" it sounds plausible to me.

The actual comment was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox News

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

I was paraphrasing but whatever, I still believe that Republicans were largely ignored and given short shrift in the healthcare debate, but sticking to the issue at hand, I stand by my comments that Republicans are offering ideas on preventing shootings.

That they are being dismissed by the other side because they don't include bans on certain guns, doesn't change that.

March 21st, 2013

Moderator

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

And your side is not listening to the fact that President Obama has included other issues that need to be addressed, not just bans on certain guns, and has been very up front about that.

March 21st, 2013

Walter Oobleck

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

The only way death by gun can be prevented is to destroy all guns, rid the world of guns, and that includes those held by
government, including the law. And that means death by knife, by arrow, by club, by the jawbone of an ass will make the
headlines.

I think it is ludicrous to speak of limiting an assailant to ten rounds. Here, Mr. Assailant, you can shoot ten people, or one
person ten times, but no more, nosiree, bobby...we draw the line at ten. We accept ten deaths...or one person shot ten
times, but the tipping-point is ten.

I think it is just as ludicrous to believe that all of the guns in the world are going to be destroyed. I think it is unfortunate
that some are willing to dismiss the concerns of others, those who point to the history of man, the history of governments
killing their citizens, or rounding them up and forcing them to pound rocks. I think it is unfortunate that the many uses of
a gun to defend from harm are dismissed.

Instead of telling those who believe the lessons from history should be heeded that all of their guns are to be confiscated and
melted down, marginalizing them, minimizing their concerns, why not come up w/an alternative that would appeal to them?
They see "gun control" as victim disarmament. Is it fair to take away the means of self-defense of millions of honest people
who have done no harm? Really? You believe this is fair?

I read one alternative from a man who wrote to the local paper. Here's his thought: armories. His idea was local armories.
And he was limited to a 400-word count in his letter...he also writes stories...Scratch Out!...among others. While armories might
be the answer to those who believe it is only w/a battle rifle that a potentially tyrannical government can be opposed...battle
rifles...that you know as an "assault weaon". Hey, the Swiss provide their citizens w/one...are they a more advanced form of
evolution, that those people are trusted w/the guns they are trusted with?

March 21st, 2013

Moderator

Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

I think it is ludicrous that it has to be an all or nothing discussion, that guns should not be considered part of the discussion along with the other factors, and that it is considered acceptable to continue to allow guns and ammunition that should have never been made available to the public in the first place to be sold to them. I think it is ludicrous that innocent people, regardless of whether they are adults or children, continue to be placed at risk because some people cannot accept that by not restricting how and who gets them, the bottom line is that guns make killing easier and less personal compared to weapons that would require the assailant to be up close and personal in order to inflict lethal wounds regardless of whether the user is "responsible" or not, and that the number of victims killed by a single assailant is dramatically increased and for that reason and others, there should be a serious discussion and restrictions, if not all out bans, and serious consequences for violations of any regulations be placed on certain types of weapons and ammunition.